IBJNews

Overseas rules change could pave way for Simon deals

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

New rules proposed for real estate investment trusts in the United Kingdom could help Indianapolis-based Simon Property Group Inc. as it seeks to expand its shopping mall dominance outside the United States.

The changes would loosen restrictions on ownership and stock-exchange listings, allowing for the creation of up to 40 new REITs, Bloomberg reported. Properties or companies in the UK would be eligible for REIT status even if their owners' shares trade on overseas exchanges.

That could help pave the way for Simon to add to its holdings in the UK, a strategy it has been plotting for years, said Rich Moore, an analyst for RBC Capital Markets in Ohio.

"If there are changes that make it easier on REITs, that's a positive for Simon," Moore said Tuesday. "They're a big battleship with a lot of capacity to buy things. They're just waiting, biding their time."

Simon already owns a stake in Capital Shopping Centres Group and Capital & Countries Properties, two London-based firms that operated together as Liberty International prior to May 2010, according to Simon regulatory filings.

Simon controls less than 6 percent of each company's outstanding shares in order to avoid a tangle with British REIT regulations.

It's not the first time Simon has been "thwarted" by circumstances out of its control as it seeks to grow, Moore noted. Another recent example was Simon's unsuccessful attempt to acquire Chicago-based General Growth Properties out of bankruptcy.

The proposed changes in the UK “will allow more cross-border M&A activity,” Phil Nicklin, who heads Deloitte LLP’s unit focused on REITs, told Bloomberg. “Investment banks are already talking to me about this.”

REITs in the UK avoid corporation or capital gains taxes in return for paying investors 90 percent of the income generated by their property.

The new rules won’t allow the creation of private REITs, according to the UK Treasury. Closely held real estate companies can qualify for the tax exemptions if they seek to sell shares on a London exchange within three years.

Current rules require REITs to have 25 percent of their shares widely held by investors. Pension funds and life insurance companies may gain exemptions from the rule, the Treasury said, without being more specific.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

  2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

  3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

  4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

  5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

ADVERTISEMENT